Techdirt. Stories filed under "popcorn"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "popcorn"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:00:00 PSTDailyDirt: Sriracha In EverythingMichael Hohttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100727/10444410383/dailydirt-sriracha-everything.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100727/10444410383/dailydirt-sriracha-everything.shtmlno trademark on Sriracha, so there's no legal friction to using the name/product. Maybe some products aren't using the real sauce, but it's still free advertising for the authentic Sriracha. (And do you really want to risk alienating the rabid fans of Sriracha just to save a few bucks using a knock-off hot sauce?)

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>urls-we-dig-uphttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100727/10444410383Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:27:57 PDTJudge Wright Orders Second Prenda Hearing, Tells Everyone They Better Actually Show Up This TimeMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/12144422324/judge-wright-orders-second-prenda-hearing-tells-everyone-they-better-actually-show-up-this-time.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130314/12144422324/judge-wright-orders-second-prenda-hearing-tells-everyone-they-better-actually-show-up-this-time.shtmla new order in the big Prenda case, in which he's set up a new hearing, for March 29th, and made it quite clear that everyone associated with Prenda had better show up this time. He's rejected the motions from Team Prenda claiming that the court has no jurisdiction, saying that he's satisfied that he has specific jurisdiction over everyone involved based on the evidence from the hearing this week, "because of their pecuniary interest and active, albeit clandestine participation in these cases." Also, he's clearly not pleased about the claims that the court has no jurisdiction over Team Prenda:

Not only does the Ex Parte Application lack merit, its eleventh-hour filing
exemplifies gamesmanship. Accordingly, the Ex Parte Application is DENIED.

Judge Wright again notes that there is evidence of sanctionable activity, as well as the possibility of fraud on the court, and he's ordering everyone involved to show up. The list has expanded somewhat. This is who is ordered to show up:

Obviously, it is likely that there is a fair bit of overlap between the main players behind many of these entities. I note that he's still asking Alan Cooper from AF Holdings to show up... but no longer demanding Alan Cooper, caretaker to show up. Basically, one last chance for Steele to prove that the "other" Alan Cooper really exists. I'm a bit surprised there's no request for Alan Mony/Monay too.

Judge Wright even tells the lawyers from the other side -- Morgan Pietz and Nicholas Ranallo -- that they don't have to show up, though they're welcome to "if so desired." In other words, they don't have to do any more to prove the claims that they were making. The judge knows what's going on.

In terms of what the hearing will cover:

These persons and entities are ORDERED to appear on March 29, 2013, at
10:30 a.m., TO SHOW CAUSE for the following:

1) Why they should not be sanctioned for their participation, direction,
and execution of the acts described in the Court’s February 7, 2013
Order to Show Cause;

2) Why they should not be sanctioned for failing to notify the Court of
all parties that have a financial interest in the outcome of litigation;

3) Why they should not be sanctioned for defrauding the Court by
misrepresenting the nature and relationship of the individuals and
entities in subparagraphs a–m above;

4) Why John Steele and Paul Hansmeier should not be sanctioned for
failing to make a pro hac vice appearance before the Court, given
their involvement as “senior attorneys” in the cases; and

5) Why the individuals in subparagraphs a–g above should not be
sanctioned for contravening the Court’s March 5, 2013 Order (ECF
No. 66) and failing to appear on March 11, 2013.

Furthermore, to prevent further gaming around claims of not having enough time to find out about this order, Judge Wright has ordered Brett Gibbs to serve everyone by tomorrow, and to file proof of service by Monday. Oh yeah, he also has to show up for the big hearing on the 29th.

Oh, and should Team Prenda decide not to show up on the 29th? Sounds like it won't be a pretty picture:

Should the persons and entities in subparagraphs a–m above not appear on
March 29, 2013, the Court is prepared to draw reasonable inferences concerning their
conduct in the cases before the Court, including any inferences derived from their
failure to appear. Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of
sanctions.

And I had just been running out of popcorn....

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>encore!https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130314/12144422324Fri, 27 May 2011 17:00:00 PDTDailyDirt: Making Popcorn In Modern TimesMichael Hohttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110120/18344312751/dailydirt-making-popcorn-modern-times.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110120/18344312751/dailydirt-making-popcorn-modern-times.shtml

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>urls-we-dig-uphttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110120/18344312751Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:34:02 PSTBlaming Popcorn For Hollywood's TroublesMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/10471511689/blaming-popcorn-for-hollywood-s-troubles.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/10471511689/blaming-popcorn-for-hollywood-s-troubles.shtmlisn't "piracy," but popcorn. The basic idea is that the theater owners drive the success of the movie industry and the theater owners make their money off of popcorn, so they only want movies that fill seats with young people who buy lots of high margin popcorn. And that leads to bad movies. Or something. Honestly, the line of thought from popcorn to movies sucking isn't entirely clear. The article does mention that box office sales are actually up (though fewer tickets are being sold), but leaves out what that really means. Of course fewer tickets are being sold: there's more competition and theaters, for the most part, have been slow to create a better experience. Rather than demanding crappy movies that they think will attract lots of young popcorn buyers, they could have (and should have) focused on making the overall movie-going experience better (which, by the way, might even include not pricing the popcorn quite so high). There are lots of reasons why some of the big movie studios are struggling, but popcorn is a pretty small part of it... as is "piracy." The failure of the movie industry and the theater industry to recognize that they're in the business of selling an overall experience is a much bigger problem, and one that the industry hasn't shown much indication of figuring out yet.

"In the absence of movie piracy, video retailers would sell and rent more titles. Movie theatres would sell more tickets and popcorn. Corn growers would earn greater profits and buy more farm equipment."

Of course, this ignored some rather basic facts. First, corn remains a hugely successful crop for giant agribusiness, who are quite fat and happy thanks to massive government subsidies. Second, despite the rise in movie file sharing over the years, attendance at theaters continues to rise -- suggesting no decline in popcorn sales at theaters. Finally, even if people are file sharing at home, why wouldn't they eat popcorn while they watch those movies at home? Cotton never explains what it is about a downloaded film that makes it less likely to induce popcorn eating than a rented film. In fact, it seems that the corn business is pretty much immune to whatever is happening online.

However, it looks like the whole "corn-file sharing" mythical connection has made its way north in amusing and unhinged ways. Michael Geist points us to an editorial by musician Loreena McKennitt in support of the Canadian copyright reform bill, C-32, where she claims that it's necessary to help the poor popcorn vendors at concerts.

What does that have to do with the copyright bill? That's not at all clear. There's nothing in the copyright bill that will create more concerts that lead to more work for popcorn vendors (and, um, I've been to plenty of concerts -- and really don't recall "popcorn vendors" being at concerts). The link isn't just tenuous here, it's non-existent. McKennitt claims that the music tours are struggling these days, but that has nothing to do with copyright. Even if it's true that touring, as a whole, is struggling (and that's not what the evidence really shows), stricter copyright laws don't have any impact whatsoever. So why is she even bringing it up? She appears to be trying to get sympathy for something totally unconnected to the issue at hand.

Better protection of our intellectual property rights will help to change this. We can once again have a thriving creative environment where artists are paid and the communities where they live and work reap the rewards.

Huh? She never actually explains how better protection of intellectual property rights gets more people to pay or helps anyone. Hell, if we're using McKennitt logic, what about the poor popcorn vendor who no longer can go to concerts because he now spends the money he would have used for concerts on CDs, since he can no longer download for free? Of course, as McKennitt knows (she runs her own record label), the money from music sales mostly goes to the labels, not the artists. So, in that scenario, the artist is making a lot less. Of course, there are lots of other factors, but remember, we're using McKennitt logic. In that world, it seems empirically proven that passing such a law that magically makes popcorn vendors buy CDs actually harms musicians. Uh oh...